Skip

“VaporVotes“

After voting 40 times to repeal Obamacare in the US House, why should I trust the DC Establish Republicans?  Yeah, I get it – for the last 3 years I’ve listened to “we’re gonna repeal it!”.  First couple of times, rah-rah!…and then snoresville.  There comes a time when credulity just breaks down from sheer repetition of doing the same thing without a result.  Even if all of the TEA Party AND Establishment Senate candidates had won their Senate races, the Senate Repubs still would not have had a filibuster proof margin – and no where enough votes to override a veto.  The Framers gave the US House the ultimate last resort on paying for the functioning of the government – even to the point of not funding “settled law” (and yes, go back to Viet Nam history).  Progressives and Big Governmentalists were all agog – “what do you mean you wouldn’t fund the Federal Government!!”.  Well, when the Senate’s Reid decided not to pass a “regular order” budget for 4 years and decided to go with indecipherable Continuing Resolutions (that hardly let us Citizens know what we were spending where) instead, why not?

Thus, smoke and mirrors, pure political theater – vaporvotes. As in vaporware.  As in  Flash!, no substance.  The ONLY chance to stop Obamacare was to use the power of the purse – defund it.  They knew it.  Harry Reid knew it.  And Obama knew it (as his sycophants in the MSM). Constitutionally (Article I, section 7, clause 1; Article 1 Section 7 Clause 9), the US House has the authority to fund what it wants.  Or not.  Period. And the Republicans got scared of:

Read more

From the Daily Brief – a prior military gal turned writer and freelancer (to pay the bills).  She’s not a constant blogger and there’s a lot she puts out that I’ll read and go “oh” but this is the first time in a while enough to link and post – because it is indicative of an undercurrent that is re-establishing itself. A couple of excerpts (emphasis mine, reformatted):

You know, this whole “social justice” thing is just Cultural Marxism wrapped up in Political Correctness. This is meant to do one thing and one thing only – install guilt into a vast majority of people have done nothing wrong. Sure, the colleges are full of this crap – seemingly, they can’t turn out decent graduates anymore but they certainly seem very good at political and social indoctrination.  And now it seems it has taken hold in the military.  the irony of it all, of all of the institutions in the US, the military is amongst the most integrated racially and economically.  Rich, poor, black, white, brown, yellow, red, green with purple polka dots…the emphasis is on unit cohesion.  That’s mil-speak for building a TEAM environment – you trust your buddies and they trust you.  That’s not to say that there aren’t problems (real problems), but when in combat, you have to know that you can and that your buddies can rely on each other.  The Eldest and the Youngest talked about this more than a few times in front of me – and the problem ‘children” were not those of a particular  racial or ethnic group as the race-baiters all want us to believe, but those whose character was lacking (or, in some cases, just plain stupidity).  Willing to cut corners, willing to cheat, dishonesty, not willing to pull their own loads…cowardice.  These nitwits knew no bounds because these kinds of ugly go way past being skin deep.

I’ve been reading for years where the military believes we in the TEA Party, or former Vets, or Evangelical Christians, those that believe in the Constitution or limited government are to be considered “possible terrorists” (ever since Obama took office, really).  But this just took my breath away, to think that the military, under the guise of “Equal Opportunity training”, would even THINK of teaching this bile! This is supposed to fix….what?

A controversial 600-plus page manual used by the military to train its Equal Opportunity officers teaches that “healthy, white, heterosexual, Christian” men hold an unfair advantage over other races, and warns in great detail about a so-called “White Male Club.”

637  pages?  This is like Bill Ayers all over again;

Read more

Using Sarbanes’s baseball analogy, the situation facing these nearly 1.4 million health-insurance refugees would be akin to a loyal aficionado receiving the following letter from the Baltimore Orioles:

October 30, 2013

Dear Orioles fan:

It is our duty to inform you that you no longer will be able to sit in the bleachers at Camden Yards. Seats in this section have been cancelled, due to the Essential Spectator Benefits of the Affordable Sports Act (a.k.a. Obamasports).

We encourage you to visit Sports.gov, where you can shop for tickets that comply with these new, federally mandated minimum standards.

For example, you could purchase seats in Section 250. Supporters of ObamaSports have described these as “better seats” rather than the “flimsy seats” that you have occupied. These new seats would be in the shade, instead of in the bright sunshine, where you and your friends and loved ones preferred to sit before Obamasports ejected you from this part of the ballpark. These shaded seats should reduce the risk of your developing wrinkles or contracting skin cancer.

These ASA-compliant seats also are nearer to providers of Maryland crab, Korean barbecue, and other healthy food options at Camden Yards, rather than the low-quality hot dogs and popcorn that were sold near the seats that you used to frequent.

Read more

“The essence of modern Democratic progressivism is: “You will participate in what we have created for you, and you will comply with the law’s demands.”

– Daniel Henniger, WSJ

Doubt me?  Just review Steve’s post on Laura Pantelakos: “I Don’t Care About Protecting People’s Liberty“!  Good to know – it will now add to my growing Pantheon of NH Democrat truthful gaffes on their abusive views of the Proper Role of Government (“…legislate behavior…protect us against our own stupidity….everyone must be all in”); each in their own way reinforcing what Henniger’s above line.  He also follows that up with this non-rhetorical question:

“Do I want to live with this level of personal enforcement in the U.S.?“

Supposition Fact followed by Question. Go ahead, give me some Progressive laws that have been put into place that ENHANCE your ability to choose (and if you find one, doesn’t restrict someone else just so you can have more?).  You can’t listen to Progressives’ words – judge them by their actions and results.  That is the fact followed by my questions:

• Is it the Proper Role of Government to demand Absolute Obedience?
• What IS the kind of Government that demands Absolute Obedience?

Read more

I am the son of immigrants who valued the risk of America’s Freedom above the safety and security of their homelands – they answered Freedom’s beckon.

Read more

Progressives are nothing but Socialists, and Socialism is nothing more than an exercise in greedy enviousness: what can I get for nothing?  And how can I get more from Government – after all, in a Socialist State, that’s “from whom all blessings flow”.   And since Government is responsible for handing out “the spoils”, it becomes a very vicious selfishness as well (“I don’t have enough, so I’m going after your’s – simply because you have more than me”).

There is little regard in that what you might get for “free” from a Progressive Government in that it  means someone else must suffer a loss and that, for me, is as good a definition for what a Progressive Government engenders in it “citizens” as any. They are all about what they can “give” to people but can’t be honest to admit that they do take from others – but justify it by first demonizing to the point of making them “the Other” (how often have you seen Obama do exactly that?).   Government, at that point, no longer is functioning in the way the writers of the Declaration of Independence meant (“That to secure these rights, [ that would be Liberty -Skip] Governments are instituted among Men”). Doubt me?  Here is a CONGRESSMAN that shows EXACTLY what is in our Progressive future and remember, we already give him $174,000 / year.

It used to be that Family had the responsibility for each other and sacrificed for each other – now, it is just WONDERFUL that taxpayers will instead (even as he is amongst “the 5% (I think the 1% starts around $360K) (emphasis mine and reformatted):

During a House Energy and Commerce Committee on Obamacare, Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) told Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius that he thinks Obamacare will save him money by subsidizing an insurance policy for his 33-year-old son.

Read more

“You can keep your insurance if but only if you buy the insurance that we think you ought to have,’ which reveals the part of ObamaCare that is applied Bloombergism.”

Well, when I watched “Special Report” tonite and heard George Will say that line, I told myself that I had to transcribe it – and then Isurfed that The Corner had it already:

And as a result supporters of ObamaCare are pioneering new dimensions of sophistry. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat in the House, today said the president should have caveated it. Now that’s a clunky verb. What he means is he should have put a big asterisk over his statement, and the asterisk would say, ‘You can keep your insurance if but only if you buy the insurance that we think you ought to have,’ which reveals the part of ObamaCare that is applied Bloombergism. The mayor of New York’s been a very candid progressive. He says, ‘I know what you ought to eat, I know what you ought to drink, and I’m going to use the police power of the city to make you do it.’ And ObamaCare says exactly the same thing: You’re free to choose if you choose the right thing.

Also a perfect summarization of Progressivism: I know what you ought to eat, I know what you ought to drink, and I’m going to use the police power of the city to make you do it.’ And ObamaCare says exactly the same thing: You’re free to choose if you choose the right thing.  And they get to choose what is that “right thing“.

Read more

Given the absolutely putrifying shellacking that the Progressives, the Democrats, and the Media have been doing on the TEA Party, I thought this was a “no contest” comparison.  After all:

• Obama represents the Socialist wing of America – fundamentally transforming America away from its roots by his use of an activist government machine to a governance model that demands that The State be forced to do things – implementing “Positive Rights” for you via a repudiation of the “negative Rights” of our founding.
• The TEA Party wishes a governance model that allows Citizens to live their live uncoerced by Government activities and whose 3 Principles are:
  • limited government
  • Free Markets
  • Constitutional values

Boy, was I surprised! 

Read more

Obama and Obamacare hates sick people (emphasis mine and reformatted):

…The husband is 57, the wife 61. Both have cancer — the husband’s is in remission while the wife’s is in aggressive and expensive treatment.

The couple had been obtaining health insurance under Wisconsin’s high-risk-pool program, created in 1979, which provides health care to about 20,000 residents and is subsidized by a state tax on everyone else’s health-insurance plans. Under that plan, the couple paid a premium of $767 a month and had out-of-pocket expenses capped at $10,000 a year, meaning their overall costs were around $19,000. Eligibility for Wisconsin’s high-risk-pool program comes from being rejected by two commercial insurance companies. Under Obamacare, those companies can’t reject anyone because of preexisting conditions, so the high-risk pools will be eliminated [Jan 1 – Skip].

Finding information about enrolling in Obamacare has been a nightmare. The husband has tried to review plans at Healthcare.gov over 40 times at all times of the day and night with no success. He called the Obamacare 1-800 number two weeks ago. A friendly woman promised to send him a packet of information that never arrived. In the meantime, the only place he can get any information is the insurance companies, which are providing him quotes that are roughly double his current costs.

The “bronze plan” doesn’t include necessary care, so the couple is looking at the “silver plan,” which starts at $1,400 a month. They are still trying to get an exact handle on the out-of-pocket expenses, but right now it appears as if the total cost will be in the range of $40,000.

The husband has been given three different estimates of the subsidies he will receive from the federal government, from $726 a month to $911 a month. Although that will soften the blow, they will still likely be paying more. (Nothing is certain yet given the rat’s nest of Healthcare.gov).

Read more